Sawed-Off Shotguns, Spineless Utah Republicans and The Golden Arches

Link: The driver , of a white Dodge Intrepid pulled into the drive-through at about 2 a.m. at McDonald’s at 210 W. 500 South in Salt Lake City and ordered food from the lunch and dinner menu, police said.

When a clerk told her the restaurant was serving only items from the breakfast menu, the woman drove to the second window, police said. Two men got out of the car, and one pulled a sawed-off shotgun out of the trunk, police said. He fired once or twice into the drive-though window before the two men and the woman left…

Jesus Assault RiflesUnfortunately, the new law making it perfectly legal to carry loaded guns in your car WITHOUT a concealed carry permit is not retroactive.

That’s right. Amid strong public opposition, the rural, religious, right-wing politicos that run the state have taken Utah closer to the territory of the Wild Wild West for which they yearn.

Link: The two bills make changes to current gun laws to allow loaded firearms to be carried in vehicles without the necessity of a concealed weapons permit, and require businesses to allow loaded firearms in vehicles parked on their property…

…all for which will only make it easier for pretty much anyone to steal a loaded gun without having to confront its owner. Yeaaaaah!!!

On the issue of allowing loaded firearms to be carried in vehicles without a concealed weapons permit, 60 percent of respondents were somewhat or strongly opposed, while 35 percent were somewhat or strongly in favor.

Ah, but the gun lobby is very very active at the Capitol and the spine of the average pioneer, well…absent.

Seemingly, Republican legislators are willing to take the sides of gun rights lobbyists against the rights of property owners,” Gunn said. “Legislators are saying that gun rights trump property rights.

But then what are Republicans if not hypocrites.

, , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Silly Shirley on April 2, 2009 - 3:53 pm

    Silly me. I thought that most gun owners in Utah used them for hunting. You know, killing a deer, elk, pheasant, turkey, etc. I have no issue with that. However, I don’t agree that we need to have loaded guns in our cars or trucks.

    Shooting a deer from the cab of your truck isn’t very sporting and has never been an acceptable practice. It only takes a few seconds to unload or reload that gun outside the vehicle.

    Now that it’s legal to carry a loaded gun in your car, I assume that we can expect more shots being fired from vehicles. Especially when McD’s isn’t serving from their dinner menu and an upset customer decides to “take out” their drive up window. Yep, it’s real important to “protect” our families by carrying a loaded gun in the car.

  2. #2 by Amark on April 2, 2009 - 3:55 pm

    The pro-gun people on this post seem very interested in protecting their private property, but why shouldn’t a business or a church be allowed to do the same thing. If they don’t want guns on their property they should be allowed to say so. These are not public spaces.

    How do you feel about the government demanding you allow anyone into your home who is carrying a piece? This legislation over-steps the bounds of constitutionality.

  3. #3 by Weer'd Beard on April 2, 2009 - 6:04 pm

    Oddly enugh sawed-off shotguns have been banned since 1934.

    When laws don’t work, make redundant laws!

    Of course the Pro-Ignorance, Anti-Freedom crowd has some serious logic issues.

    Also I have some very large doubts that besides illigal posession of an NFA Short-Barrled Shotgun, I have a feeling this beast also can’t legally own ANY firearm.

    And just in case you don’t get my point, when they find this mutant, I hope they toss him in prison for the rest of his life….better yet if his life abruptly ends from a lethal injection.

  4. #4 by marshall on April 2, 2009 - 7:53 pm

    Cliff you have got to let this go. Every third post is on guns.

  5. #5 by Moribund Republic on April 2, 2009 - 7:59 pm

    Fascist plans have no future in nations with an armed populace marshall.

    So come to your own conclusions about the obsession.

    None of we law abiding gun owners are going anywhere.

    So what’s plan Cliff, Stalinist house to house search and seizures?

    The 2nd amendment has about nothing to do with hunting animals Silly. Though tyrannical governments can and often are described as animals.

  6. #6 by Liberal Slayer on April 3, 2009 - 1:17 am

    The author of this article is clearly a sissy who is afraid of firearms. I bet he doesn’t even know what questions are on the forms you fill out to buy a firearm. I challenge this sissy to post a 5’x5′ sign on his front lawn saying “I don’t own firearms” I bet this same sissy also believes that restricting firearms stops crimes because “those evil black rifles are only used to kill people. Why would you need a gun with 30 shots to hunt deer?” Newsflash retard, the second amendment is not about hunting or personal defense. It’s about resisting tyranny. He also obviously believes that 1, 15 round magazine in a pistol is more dangerous than 8, 10 round magazines. I bet he doesn’t even know the difference between a clip and magazine yet he yaps about gun control. I bet he also believes that the Mexican drug cartels are getting their automatic AK-47’s form the United States. What an idiot!

  7. #7 by Rich Okelberry on April 3, 2009 - 6:12 am

    “the rural, religious, right-wing politicos that run the state have taken Utah closer to the territory of the Wild Wild West for which they yearn.” – Cliff Lyon

    It’s hard for you to put up a post without throwing out a bit of your bigoted hate towards religion isn’t it Cliff?

  8. #8 by Shane Smith on April 3, 2009 - 7:02 am

    “Shooting a deer from the cab of your truck isn’t very sporting and has never been an acceptable practice. It only takes a few seconds to unload or reload that gun outside the vehicle.”

    How is shooting a deer ever very sporting?

    I say, you want sport? Take that deer down with a 6 inch blade. Better yet, real men use their empty hands!

    “And just in case you don’t get my point, when they find this mutant, I hope they toss him in prison for the rest of his life….better yet if his life abruptly ends from a lethal injection.”

    There we go! No the caricature of the pro gun crowd as violent is all wrong!

    Now lets kill some people! Woot!

    And just in time, someone who actually posts with a name that suggests he kills people, who calls everyone involved “sissy.”

    Oh there is going to be even more testosterone in this thread than the last! I am shocked that people even type words rather than just jumping up and down and grunting.

    …..I will be right back, I need to go make popcorn.

  9. #9 by Slayer of Liberal Slayer (Cliff) on April 3, 2009 - 7:34 am

    Welcome LS,

    Clearly you are new around here or you would know, I grew up in rural PA with guns, hunting, etc.

    And surprise, surprise, I go to the gun range a couple of times a year to shoot all kinds of people killers including some classics that would make you drool.

    I too get a rise out of the power and precision of some guns.

    I also know that pretty much an buffoon can get a gun and use it. This post is a perfect example of why we need stricter gun laws. If the guy that shot up the McDonals had had a bag of hammers in his trunk, it is unlikley he would have even bothered to get out of his car.

    With a loaded shotgun, he is a tough guy who would have and COULD have killed an innocent person.

    Without it, he is just another couch potato who didn’t get his Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

  10. #10 by Bill Kephart on April 3, 2009 - 12:13 pm

    The irresponsible use of firearms by the untrained or those with criminal intent in mind is indeed dangerous. However is it rational to single out firearms (one dangerous instrument among many) for special legislation? After all power tools are deadly weapons in the wrong hands. However there are no laws for “high capacity batteries” in the way there are laws against high capacity magezines. In fact firearms are a special class of item that has specifically enumerated constitutional protections for ownership. The reason for this is not for sport, hunting, or any other harmless activity touted by the rhetoric (not logic) of those who wish to placate the “second amendment voters” but literally “the security of a free state”. In other words popular ownership of firearms is protected by the highest law of the land in order that the people have some means of resistance should the government become tyrannical. Therefore any abridgement of this right is directly contrary to the word and spirit of the constitution.

    However one could make the case that the constitution is a bad document. However I would be interested to see such an argument considering the success of the republic which it provided the foundations for.

    I’m going to give you the chance to be rational Cliff and show everyone that you can frame an argument in logical terms as your educational background in philosophy would suggest. The frequent appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks you have a tendency to show in this post and others are not indicative of that sort of education. Therefore I must ask you if you believe the citizens of the United States should have the means to resist tyranny with force should tyranny ever be thrust upon them? And if not can you propose a workable alternative that a reasonable person would believe had the ability to guard liberty?

  11. #11 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 12:27 pm

    Not going to happen Bill. Cliff has been out of school over 30 years now.

    The smoking of various substances has contributed to his memory loss, and foggy thinking. He isn’t student or intellect he once was.

    What is interesting is that Cliff has arrived at his irrational pacifism despite his own family being the victims of armed persecution. It makes no sense, and all Cliff is attempting to do is make American gun owners look bad. Needless to say his relatives in a certain country would no more give up their weapons as slit their own wrists. That makes Cliff an anomaly in his tribe, and truly I believe it is simply for attention, though negative, that he never received as a little boy.

    Still the little boy screaming for attention. Any kind at all.

    I do not know if that is because he is truly off his rocker, or if he would desire an disarmed populace to easier facilitate his Fascist agenda. The evidence of his erratic thinking is all over this site. His site.

    Really, Imagine, Like John Lennon, that the world was the fantasy some people would want it to be. Ironic he is shot dead by someone nuts that admired him. I have to wonder what he did to deserve it, he believing in karma so much and all.

  12. #12 by Kyle on April 3, 2009 - 2:09 pm

    Let me get this straight, the criminals that are willing to break laws and shoot people with guns will stop breaking the law if we make the laws stricter? That makes no sense what-so-ever, Cliff has to stop doing drugs before blogging and posting, this argument makes no sense at all.

    First Let’s think about this from a law abiding persons point of view, if I as a law abiding citizen am told I can’t carry a firearm in a specific situation I don’t, when I’m allowed to I will if I want to. That is simple and makes sense. Now let’s look at this through the mind of a murdering psychopath that likes threatening and killing people, do you honestly believe that if more restricting laws were passed regarding the use of firearms he is going to say, “awe suck, I guess I can’t break the law and kill people anymore because it’s illegal for me to use a gun to do it! ” Really, if you believe that you also believe Columbia’s main export to the U.S. is coffee. If they use the gun to do something like kill someone then they would obviously be willing to break the law by carrying the gun. It’s not like someone is willing to commit capitol murder but won’t use an illegal weapon to do it. It’s like saying, “Boy I would really really like to kill my wife, but since guns are illegal I guess I’ll just have to put up with the B*tch.”

  13. #13 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 2:31 pm

    Cliff, you are seriously obsessed with gun control. Don’t you have something better to do than cry about guns all the time?

    Moribund, I like that Lennon was idealistic. In some ways that can be good. I like to “imagine” the world he presents in his song of the same title every time I hear it. However, why exactly did the crazy dude kill Lennon? He realized that despite all of Lennons idealistic beliefs, despite all of his preaching, Lennon was really a hypocrite(Cliff anyone?). He was man who spoke out about material possesions, yet he had so very many material things, it drove a crazy man who believed in Lennons ideals to want to kill the hypocrite, but I digress.

    Back to Cliff now. You can’t even form an argument without letting your true colors show. It is clear from every one of your posts, that you hate Mormons, and the Republicans. I mean you don’t just disagree with them, you actually hate them. I think it’s clear that if you were a politician in Utah, you would not even consider the wishes of the majority, because you hate the majority so much.

    I dislike how Republican Utah is myself. I’d like to see a little more balance, but you on the other hand are a biggot. You hate by association, and that’s not right.

    Cliff+blog=hate propaganda

  14. #14 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 2:39 pm

    Huh!! And here I thought it was like the nut said, that he did it to impress Jodie Foster.

    Oops, wrong nut.

    No, I think it was the killer himself , Chapman, that said he wanted to “steal Lennon’s fame”.

    “Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t”.

  15. #15 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 2:44 pm

    Given that Cliff has uttered death threats towards Glenn Beck, and has threatened violence on this blog more than once, I believe that we should hoist him on his own petard as the apparent nutter he is, and have his right to lethal self defense revoked on mental grounds.

    Isn’t uttering death threats a felony?

  16. #16 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 2:52 pm

    Well, I guess I’m not allowed to post video clips. Which means the only clips we’ll be seeing are the ones posted by Cliff, or his Ultra Liberal friends. For those of you who want to see some interesting and humorous points on gun control, look up Penn and Teller’s Bullshit Gun Control on Youtube.

  17. #17 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 2:53 pm

  18. #18 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 3:05 pm

    Since Cliff seems to think it’s ignorant of Utahn’s to want to preserve thier rights in regards to firearms, I have a quote here from Thomas Jefferson.

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
    wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
    they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
    it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
    warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
    resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
    to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure.”

  19. #19 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 3:25 pm

    Cliff, how is it that with everything going on in this country you keep coming back to gun control? Why don’t you address another issue? Say the injustice of the new cigarette tax for example. Why don’t you get that conversation started. I’d like a debate on whether it’s fair to tax smokers so much to sustain thier habit. Why cigarettes? Some have told me it’s partly incentive for smokers to quit an unhealthy habit, but that’s just stupid. Why not raise the tax on soda pop, candy, fastfood, and over the counter drugs if it’s about a healthier America. I think the government saw a group they could take advantage of to raise needed funds. I used to smoke a cigar or two occasionally, but I refuse to buy any form of tobacco from now on. I will not support what I see as an unfair tax. I know I’m off the topic of gun control here, but that’s kinda the point, maybe you should stop beating a dead horse and use your blog site to discuss other issues.

  20. #20 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 7:00 pm

    double post

  21. #21 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 7:00 pm

    “Sawed off shotgun” huh? As in barrel less than 18″ in length or overall length less than the NFA established minimum? If so, did they have the NFA mandated paperwork to legally own such a weapon (special background check, registration of the weapon, payment of the federally mandated tax, sign-off from local chief LEO, that sort of thing)?

    If not, the weapon was already illegal. And if they are carrying an illegal weapon around, what makes you think that a law against having the weapon loaded would make any difference at all?

    Criminals, doing criminal things. Wow. How . . . unsurprising.

  22. #22 by Fellow Fascist on April 5, 2009 - 10:31 am

    Excellent propaganda site, comrade Cliff! With these carefully crafted lies and exploitation of minor news events, we will soon have our fellow Americans helpless and unarmed against our Nanny State! Then the real fun can begin as we redistribute all the land and wealth and send all the kids to re-education camps. I’m glad we have such great minds as yours working towards more State control of the people. Someday, with the help of propaganda like yours, America will finally reach the enlightenment of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia! Thank You!

  23. #23 by John on May 25, 2009 - 8:24 am

    Crazy. I bet those people who would do drive-by’s and robberies at gun point were just WAITING for it to be legal to carry their guns with them loaded in their vehicles. Gangbangers are very law abiding citizens and the last thing they want is to get arrested for having a loaded weapon in their car. If you don’t want a loaded weapon in your car, then don’t have one. Butd on’t startcrying about gun laws when some idiot with an “assault weapon” hi-jacks your Prius while you’re listening to NPR because you had no way to protect yourself.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on May 26, 2009 - 7:15 pm

    I’m perfectly willing to take that chance. That should be my right.

    The NRA became morally responsible for every illegal gun out there when they decided to pay lobbyists and politicians to make it as easy as possible.

  25. #25 by John on May 26, 2009 - 7:23 pm

    And it IS my right to defend myself. Has been since before we were even a country. My thanks to the founding fathers. They definately had a better head on their shoulders than our current politicians.

  26. #26 by ColdServings on May 26, 2009 - 8:08 pm

    If you want to be a disarmed victim, that is your right. The problem is that you want to make that decision for everyone else.

    In the US, gun control has no significant effect (statistically significant–which is another way of saying “detectably different from zero”) on violent crime–including homicide. You are just as likely to be killed by a criminal in States with strict gun control than in states with less strict.

    As for the NRA’s “moral responsiblity” I’ll accept that when you accept the Brady Campaign and similar groups moral responsibility for every death at a “victim disarmament zone” since they promote them so heavily.

    The idea that restricting the legal availability of guns will prevent convicted felons–who have spent months to years in close association with a variety of other felons (in little criminal academies called “prisons”) and who are only one to two “degrees of separation” from someone who could hook them up with an illegal gun if they wish–from obtaining illegal guns or, conversely, that keeping firearms available to law abiding citizens somehow makes that process easier, is one of the more absurd memes out there.

  27. #27 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2009 - 6:28 am

    Your argument is based on the premise that victims are ALREADY disarmed. You also forgot to mention that owning a gun legally does not reduce statistically your chances of saving your own life since those numbers are statistically irrelevant.

    But you forgot to mention the fact that the number of legal firearms DOES increase the chance that I will die from one.

    I think it is YOU cold who have managed to pack all the absurd NRA memes into one short comment.

  28. #28 by Anonymust on May 27, 2009 - 6:53 am

    Guns don’t prevent crime or stop criminals from acting out their crimes, that is why the police carry them. You see cops are really just carrying the junk to look cool and differentiate them as a fraternity from the rest of the not so cool non gun accessorized public.

    Cliff, with the dreams that you placed in Obama lying like rubble from a 2000 pounder strike, getting rid of guns is a non issue, move on to something more important, like getting Obama to stop dropping the rubble creators on innocent people overseas.

    You are wasting your time on this. 3 million firearms sold last month…1.6 billion rounds of ammo. Obama is the best advocate for legally armed citizens that ever was, and likely to be. I love the law of unintended consequences.

    America Cliff, it is where you live.

  29. #29 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2009 - 7:08 am

    Jesse Ventura makes a good point. There is no such thing as an accident with a loaded gun. Its incompetence.

    When there are not more ‘accidents’ with legally owned guns, I will re-consider the letting any asshole own one.

  30. #30 by Anonymust on May 27, 2009 - 7:46 am

    Nobody cares what you want Cliff, and as it stands you don’t have any power. Ever hear of “friendly fire”? It does happen. As it stands the 2nd amendment guarantees personal firearms ownership, and you guarantee nothing. All car mishaps are “accidents” and involve killing 40k plus a year for deaths, and some 1/2 million injuries. Not only that but a 16 year old beneath the age of majority can use them. This fact of car usage comes with absolutely no guaranteed right to have a car, unlike a gun.

    If you want a gun that has zero “accident” potential get yourself a single action revolver, old school, requires double clicking the hammer back and then one shot. The entire action is one of premeditation, if the gun went off, you meant it, or as you mention above incompetence.

    Humanity, where incompetence is a facet of life on Earth. It is where you live.

    As for statistics, they don’t apply to me, and never will, and will not be a determination of whether people get to have them any more than the abysmal statistics on car ownership will ban their usage.

    Some things just are and are for a good reason.

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2009 - 8:13 am

    There you go again Glenn, comparing privileged transportation with a tool designed to kill humans, a tool with no other purpose.

    Driving is not a right BECAUSE so many MORE people would die.

    Your intellectual rigor is astounding.

  32. #32 by ColdServings on May 27, 2009 - 8:14 am

    Actually, what the numbers show–looking at actual rates of crimes compared with gun control laws as reported by the Brady Campaign–is that there are no more homicides, aggravated assaults, or robberies committed in places with strict gun control than otherwise.

    Does it really matter much how the homicide is committed? Is the dead person less dead if they were pushed out a window, than if they were shot? The whole “gun crime” argument is pure smoke screen.

    As for the chance of saving my own life, consider: There is about 1 violent crime per 200 people in the US per year in recent years (which is actually much lower than it has been at times in the past) per DOJ stats. That means, each year the possibility of being the victim of such a crime is at least 0.5%. (Higher actually since many of these crimes have more than one victim.) And that doesn’t count other people at the scene who might have stopped the crime. Or another way of putting it, that’s a 99.5% chance of not being the victim of such a crime. Sounds pretty safe, right? Well, when you start adding it up: Over the course of two years, to not be a victim of such a crime requires that you come up with that 99.5% (decimally .995) in both years. The odds of that is .995*.995 or .990025). Still pretty safe, but now increase it to a typical lifetime: 68.7% chance of not being the victim of a violent crime or a 31.3% chance of being the victim of a violent crime (robbery, rape, aggravated assault, or homicide) over the course of one’s life. But that’s only if all one cares about is oneself. What about one’s family. The average size of a household in the US is about 3. That makes the odds of everyone in one’s household not ever being the victim of a violent felony only about 32.4%, which means the odds of someone in one’s household being the victim of a violent felony at least once about 67.6%.

    Maybe you are comfortable with those odds. I’m not. Oh, and most of those crimes do not involve firearms so they would happen even if you somehow magically made all guns disappear. And many if not most of the remainder would still happen, just using something else, if that magical fantasy result occurred.

    As for “accidents”: You are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading (again). Why do you not make the same argument with respect to cars, to swimming pools, to bathtubs, to stairs, to roller skates, to bicycles, to matches, to lighters, to well, pretty much anything? Yes, yes, you are going to say “that’s different” or object to “saying they’re the same.” That’s the fallacy of special pleading.

    We have established standards for driving cars. Their is no legal barrier (certainly no equivalent of the 2nd Amendment stating that driving is a right) to raising those standards if they are considered inadequate. Ergo, the level of accidents is considered one we can live with (otherwise the standards would be raised). If the level of deaths from accidents involving firearms were within an order of magnitude of those involving firearms, you might have a case but the fact is they are not. While every accidental death is tragic to those involved and those who love them it is neither possible nor advisable to try to wrap everyone in cotton and prevent all accidents. Best approach is education and training. If preventing accidents is so important then teach gun safety and safe gun handling across the board.

  33. #33 by Anonymust on May 27, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Well Cliff, we have the Constitutional right to carry, use and own implements designed specifically for killing, humans, or any other living thing.

    So what is your point? We get you don’t like it. That is just too bad, for you. We sympathize, I figure a guy like you that utters death threats, lies continually, should not be able to have a hate blog, but here you are Cliff.

    Thanks to the Constitution. Respect my legal constitutional rights, and I’ll do the same for what you pick and choose.

  34. #34 by Anonymust on May 27, 2009 - 8:52 am

    “Driving is not a right BECAUSE so many MORE people would die”.

    Vapid. Did you actually engage your brain before you spewed that?

    Everybody drives in this country, anyone who wants to anyway.

    I do believe you have crossed the Rubicon of stupidity, for me now, there is nothing left but to consider you a politically driven stupid person, and no one can fix stupid.

  35. #35 by Cliff Lyon on May 29, 2009 - 8:06 am

    Glenn, you compared driving cars – A PRIVILEGE – and owning guns – A SO CALLED RIGHT.

    I’ll accept I am stupid when you convince me that such a comparison is NOT STUPID!

  36. #36 by Cliff Lyon on May 29, 2009 - 8:34 am

    Oh Good Cold is now comparing murder by gun with being pushed out a window. Its Fuckin BRILLIANT.

    btw: If more restrictive gun controls do not curb homicides why can we not deduce that the restrictions are insufficient or not enough time has gone by?

    ColdDick, Your argument is akin to saying, “Well Honey, I made him stand in the corner for 10 minutes and he went back and hit his sister again. I guess punishment doesn’t work. I guess little Susie will just have to live in fear.”

  37. #37 by ColdServings on May 29, 2009 - 9:05 am

    You want brilliant? “Brilliant” (in the ironic mode you used it) is your position that homicide by someone using a gun is somehow worse, or more dead, than by someone using some other means.

    Look at the range of restrictions from Oklahoma getting a “2” from the Brady Campaign to California with a “79.”

    Here: you can go look at what the “79” means:

    And here’s what the “2” means:

    If that range of gun control laws is insufficient to show a detectable (which is what “statistically significant” means) difference between the low end and the high end, then, frankly, any arguments on the strength of gun control laws fails.

    As for “long enough” the Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. You’ve had 98 years. How long do you want?

    Leaving aside the personal insults (how very clever of you–did you learn that in your philosophy courses?), your position is akin to “I stood on my left foot and whistled ‘Dixie’ and the crops didn’t grow, so I guess I have to stand on my left foot, on tippie-toe, and whistle ‘Dixie’ louder, and that will work . . . this time for sure.”

    It’s not a matter of one case failing. Gun control has never worked to reduce violence. Robbery victims are still robbed, assault victims are still assaulted, and homicide victims are still killed, in essentially the same numbers with or without gun control.

    And funny you should mention punishment since that, actually, is something that does work to reduce the incidents of violent crime–catch, prosecute, imprison, and keep imprisoned people who commit violent felonies. Since violent felons are actually a small minority of the population, simply having them locked up away from the rest of society tends to make society safer.

    But, nope, the gun grabbers don’t want to do that. Instead, they want to spend time and effort on something that has never worked, at least not for the stated goal of making people safer from violent crime. Perhaps it’s effective for some other purpose, one unrelated to actually keeping you and me safe from criminals. What might those goals be?

  38. #38 by Anonymust on May 29, 2009 - 9:05 am

    Exactly Cliff, you would have an easier time attempting to ban cars, as they do not reach the level of the right to own and use a gun for self defense.

    Your arguments involve safety generally, so the comparison works as it would with any product in general use in society.

    As well, the determination of whether or not you are stupid is one that you are not involved in. Admission not required.

    I for one am using Gump’s Mom for a guide.

  39. #39 by John on May 29, 2009 - 9:23 am

    Yeah take guns away. And while you’re at it, take away knives, crow bars, baseball bats, 2×4’s, chainsaws, ice picks, rolling pins and frying pans.

  40. #40 by Weer'd Beard on May 29, 2009 - 1:21 pm

    Or we could just work harder putting violent criminals in prison where they can’t do harm, tool used for violence unimportant.

    When NYC passed their sweeping gun control laws decades ago the end result was less gun death….but more stabbings, and a higher overall murder rate.

    That sound like a victory for your side, Cliff?

  41. #41 by Cliff on June 3, 2009 - 6:46 pm

    Hey John, Shut up.


    At what cost of locking up criminals of gun laws “for a long time” to maintain the status quo?

    …so you aren’t inconvenienced by preemptive restrictions that would not reduce cost to taxpayers without denying you your fanciful interpretation of 2A?

    The extreme positions of the NRA combined with their political influence has had a devastating effect on communities and local budgets.

    You and the NRA are basically barbarians unconcerned with the ‘greater good.’

    in short, you are an obsessive compulsive.

  42. #42 by ColdServings on June 3, 2009 - 7:01 pm

    Since you are already on record as saying “you want to keep your guns, I want to take them away” it’s a bit late to be bleating about “without denying” anything. Any “restrictions” accepted are just another body part of the camel.

    As for “maintain the status quo” that assumes facts not in evidence. Actually locking up criminals is a strategy that works for reducing crime, including violent crime, unlike “gun control” which has utterly failed to have any detectable effect on said crime.

    As for “the greater good” that’s a wonderful line, used by “saints” everywhere: wonderful people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and others. It’s truly amazing what kind of atrocities can be justified in the name of “the greater good.”

    I prefer Freedom–something to which your own posts brand you as utterly opposed.

    In short, you are a tyrant or an enabler of tyrants.

  43. #43 by John on June 3, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    Ouch. Shut up. Am I talking to my 16 year old nephew? If so… Take away all the weapons you want. You’ll still get your ass handed to your with a couple fists.

  44. #44 by Weer'd Beard on June 4, 2009 - 2:41 am

    John, Remember, Cliff is highly educated, so that’s a COLLEGE “Shut Up”

    Where’s your reverence to Cliff’s denial of reality?

  45. #45 by John on June 4, 2009 - 6:17 am

    Gotcha. So it can’t be a “good ol’ boy” beating then. We’ll have find us a smart guy worth a damn somewhere.

  46. #46 by Cliff on June 4, 2009 - 6:32 am

    Hey John, What makes you think your 16-year-old-nephew agrees with you that handguns and frying pans are equally dangerous?

    Maybe your gun freaking friends can catch you up on the diff.

  47. #47 by John on June 4, 2009 - 7:40 am

    The surface area and the fact that a frying pan if made out of stainless steel does make it quite dangerous. If guns were banned, I think they’d be right up there with alluminum bats and knives.

    If you have the right to a dumbass opinion, then I should as well. Unless you want to get rid of that part of the Constitution as well. Then, by all means Cliff, we can settle for your dumbass opinions.

  48. #48 by Cliff on June 4, 2009 - 7:51 am

    Ok John

    If guns and frying pans are the same, I challenge you to a duel.

    You take the frying pan. I’ll take the gun.


  49. #49 by John on June 4, 2009 - 8:26 am

    Deal. Tell me when and where college boy. I’ll even give you one ofmy guns to use. Unless you have your own to bring to the fight?

  50. #50 by Bob S. on June 4, 2009 - 8:48 am


    Do you get to pick the location of the duel?

    If I were you, I would pick Chicago. Cliff would then be unable to BRING a firearm since the carrying of firearms is prohibited there by the government.

    He, like the criminals, gets to choose the weapons. So shouldn’t he have to follow the laws that he advocates concerning firearms?

    Or maybe just a national park before the new law takes affects. He would still be able to use the firearms….after he unlocked or opened his vehicle, retrieved the firearm, opened and unlocked the case.

  51. #51 by Archie Feingold on June 4, 2009 - 11:34 pm

    If you want an intellectual to take Cliff on, perhaps we can call Pee Wee Herman. That is so shut up!

  52. #52 by mike w. on June 28, 2009 - 10:31 am

    I wonder if the folks here at OneUtah realize that “Sawed-Off Shotguns are illegal under FEDERAL law and have been for decades.

  53. #53 by ColdServings on June 28, 2009 - 10:49 am

    mike w. :
    I wonder if the folks here at OneUtah realize that “Sawed-Off Shotguns are illegal under FEDERAL law and have been for decades.

    Not quite (at least federally). “Short barreled Shotguns” (colloquially, “sawed off shotguns”) are controlled under NFA ’34. They are legal to own provided one passes an extensive federal background check (with fingerprints–which itself makes it different from the standard NICS check), a $200 transfer tax, and an application for transfer signed by your chief local law enforcement officer (Chief of Police, Sheriff, what have you). And, unlike firearms not covered by NFA ’34, even “private transfers” have to go through the same procedure. You cannot sell it without the buyer having to do all of the above.

    Severely restricted, but not quite the same thing as “illegal.” Now, State law may vary. For instance, in Indiana, sawed off shotguns are illegal. I don’t know Utah’s law on the matter.

  54. #54 by John on June 28, 2009 - 1:31 pm

    Sawed-off shotguns can be a shotgun also that had a hunting barrel on it (26-28-30) and someone “sawedit off” to be the legal 18 inches, or safer for law, 18.5, like mine. Anything under 18 inches, like stated above, you have to jump through different hoops, but once you do, is legal.

  55. #55 by mike w. on June 28, 2009 - 7:53 pm

    Thanks for the correction. I tend to forget that you CAN own NFA items if you’re willing to go through the cost and all the hoops involved.

    Guess I tend to forget that because we can’t have any NFA stuff here in DE. One of the few reallly bad state gun laws we’ve got here.

    I’d gladly go through the endless paperwork & $200 tax stamp to get a suppressor & save my hearing.

  56. #56 by Ian on June 11, 2010 - 9:47 am

    All you people that believe this law allowing people to carry guns in their cars is going to increase violence are retarded!. Somehow I don’t think the guys that fired their shotgun through the window of the McDonald’s care whether or not they are carrying the gun legally. The law does NOT apply to criminals. Law abiding citizens are not the ones shooting at the poor kid behind the counter at McDonald’s! All you gun control advocates that want to take guns away from people are kidding yourselves. If you take guns away from people who carry them concealed with a permit then the only ones left carrying guns concealed are the criminals! Do you think they are going to willfully hand them over if we banned them? Not likely.

  57. #57 by John on July 3, 2010 - 6:23 am

    This far left loon thinks law abiding citizens should not have guns .He uses an example of someone who obviously has no concern for life or property of others ( a criminal ) as a reason for more gun restrictions . In Chicago illinois over 200 young people were killed by gang drive bys and shoot outs law abiding citizens were banned from owning hand guns and the lunatics on the leftignore this BAN GUNS FROM CRIMINALS . IF you cn’t do that leave law abiding citizens alone.

  58. #58 by John on July 3, 2010 - 6:52 am

    I was just reading an article about gun ban in chicago . Daley and the rest of chicago’s politicians are out front in effort to restrict guns because chicago has such a severe problem with gun violence. Street battles in trouble spots have left 209 dead already this year. To all you haters on the left this sounds like a gang problem to me quit trying to disarm lawabiding citizens go after the gangs.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: